메이저 바카라사이트

1. Case summary

① Who did Barun Law (attorneys in charge: Park Jae-peel, Park Sung-ho and Lee Su-kyoung) represent? We represented an education foundation.

②Case background: The plaintiff was a former director of an education foundation, which was a defendant in this case. On May 2, 2015, the board of directors rejected a resolution to reappoint him as a director. Arguing that the resolution in this case was invalid because the two directors in favor of the resolution in this case were residing in the United States and could not attend the board of directors 메이저 바카라사이트, and therefore the 메이저 바카라사이트 failed to meet the quorum requirement, the plaintiff filed a suit against the educational foundation to obtain the decision that the resolution was invalid.

③Litigation: The defendant claimed that the two directors residing in the United States attended the 메이저 바카라사이트 through video conferencing, and submitted a video of the 메이저 바카라사이트 as evidence. In response, the plaintiff argued that the video had been created after the 메이저 바카라사이트 had been held and that the file names were manipulated, so it could not be considered that the directors had participated in the 메이저 바카라사이트 through video conference.


2. Decision

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument on the basis that by comprehensively considering (i) the date and time of the 메이저 바카라사이트 as stated in the minutes of the board of directors, (ii) the start and end times appearing in the file name and file properties of the video file, (iii) the meaning of numeral numbers repeatedly appearing in the hexacode of the video file, and (iv) the correlation between the playback time of the recorded file of the video and the duration of the 메이저 바카라사이트, it cannot be concluded that the video was created or manipulated after the fact. Furthermore, the court judged that the resolution could not be regarded as invalid because it could not find any substantive defects as well as procedural defects in the resolution.


3. Our argument and role

We presented information on the date and time that appeared in the file name and file attributes of the video file as evidence. In addition, we emphasized that the number that appeared repeatedly in the hexacode refered to the time when the defendant logged into the video conferencing program by analyzing the hexacode of the video file identified through the appraiser's analysis results. As a result, we argued that the video had not been manipulated ex post. Our arguments were accepted by the court, leading to a judgment that the resolution cannot be regarded as invalid.

4. Implications

As important meetings such as a 메이저 바카라사이트 of the board of directors of a company are often held in the form of video conferencing due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, it is expected that the number of cases regarding the issue as to the legality of meetings using the video conferencing system and the allegation that a video file is manipulated is expected to increase. This case is expected to serve as an important precedent for future similar cases.